During the latest Iraq war much coverage was given to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), such as the Predator and the more advanced, next-generation Pegasus UAV. Even though Iraq managed to shoot a UAV down, the Air Force is convinced that UAVs will perform most tasks (even dogfighting!) within the next two decades at most. The CIA has already used unmanned drones to assassinate suspected Al-Qaeda members, and it will probably only be a matter of time before we hear of the Israeli Defense Force targeting Hamas with UAVs instead of Apache helicopters. It appears, however, that the civilian sector is also becoming enamored of UAVs, since the Ohio Transportation Board is planning on testing UAVs to monitor traffic congestion. These drones aren't large or heavy–their weight ranges from about 15 pounds to 55 pounds–but they nevertheless contain sophisticated infrared equipment. As miniaturization allows UAVs to carry more and more advanced electronics their potential uses will soar. One possibility would be to equip UAVs with facial recognition chips so that they could track down criminals. It appears nearly certain that there will be a convergence within the next decade of UAVs, facial recognition technology, Global Positioning Systems, and cameras on a chip. These technologies have the potential to radically change the fields of law enforcement, transportation, and emergency medicine.

USER COMMENTS 46 comment(s)

This just keeps getting worse!(4:09pm EST Fri May 30 2003)Are we really going to let things like this happen? Have Americans lost all backbone? I can't believe that something like this is actually being considered! – by M@

How bout instead(4:13pm EST Fri May 30 2003)They spend the money on better roads! How Unmanned Road Building Vehicles? Instead of monitoring traffic congestion, how bout we just get rid of it? – by Route 3 Sucks!

does this save $$$ or cost $$$(4:52pm EST Fri May 30 2003)If it allows them to get rid of 2-3 donut eating humans that provide this function now then it might work. But if it just cost more, the budget won't support it.

Money makes these decisions, not morallity. Europe already does this (face recognition and all) at many intersections with $100 cameras. Why does it need to fly???

Sounds like the OTB has some idiot who thinks they're a general with a generals budget.

Better & cheaper solutions already exist for this problem. Identix and Vissage sell these systems all over the world right now. – by you're kidding

does this save $$$ or cost $$$(4:52pm EST Fri May 30 2003)If it allows them to get rid of 2-3 donut eating humans that provide this function now then it might work. But if it just cost more, the budget won't support it.

Money makes these decisions, not morallity. Europe already does this (face recognition and all) at many intersections with $100 cameras. Why does it need to fly???

Sounds like the OTB has some idiot who thinks they're a general with a generals budget.

Better & cheaper solutions already exist for this problem. Identix (IDNX)and Vissage (VISG) sell these systems all over the world right now. – by you're kidding

Great (Trying this again)(4:53pm EST Fri May 30 2003)What happens when the facial recognition chips *malfunction* and some poor sorry sap gets blasted with a Maverick missile? – by Fun Stuff…

Yes(4:53pm EST Fri May 30 2003)Get rid of it. Use mass transit, ride a bicycle, live closer to work and walk if you can. You will get much needed exercise, reduce toxic vehicle emissions, reduce noise pollution AND reduce traffic congestion.

How many times have you seen ONE person driving themselves in a huge SUV? This is pure waste. We, the drivers are at fault for traffic congestion. More roads means more run-off to pollute the water.

It's our environment, take care of it. – by one less car

Zoomer(4:55pm EST Fri May 30 2003)very true.

Anyone here see that Dark Angel episode where the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles had machine guns and went around assasinating people?Heh, life imitates art… – by :-)

re: one less car(4:57pm EST Fri May 30 2003)Do you drive a car? Just curious. – by Lead by example, pls

This is terrible!(5:04pm EST Fri May 30 2003)The main cause of congestion here in Toledo, Ohio is the State Patrol and ODOT. The cops group up on the highways and cause many people to slow down to 55 in a 65 zone because they are so afraid of being pulled over. Then, when they do pull someone over, they almost never get off the road all the way. IDIOTS!

ODOT, on another hand, lines the roads with barrels days or weeks before and after commencing and completing its projects.

If my tax $$$$ is going to go to putting UAV's in the sky, it should be to monitor the state patrol and ODOT's progress and actions. Using it on drivers will cause me and most other non-senior citizens to become quite angry! – by SteveB

RE:One less car(5:05pm EST Fri May 30 2003)Oh, for God's sake, lets trample on freedom to save the environment. What the heck does this have to do with the environment? Don't you think a drone will burn as much gas as a cop car? Are you so desperate to push your agenda that you make everything into an environmental issue? This story is about law, freedom, and technology…not tree hugging. Did you actually read it? Why don't you go hang out instead of polluting geek discussions with this junk? – by M@

“H-K”'s (Hunter-Killers)(5:38pm EST Fri May 30 2003)Remember in the Terminator movies the rebels had to hide from the H-K's aka Hunter-Killer flying drones. Our future is looking scarier than 1984. Maybe the internet will be called SkyNet in the near future too. Looks like anyone that wants freedom is going to have to fight for it even in American! Shoot these drones down with .50 caliber anit-tank BMG rifles. – by me

Ohio needs less cops on the highways(6:39pm EST Fri May 30 2003)Just got back from Ohio and must say it was the worst driving experience ever. I mean come on, how many cops are necessary on highways.

Every mile in that state they either have a cop or someone pulled over. I got a suggestion for Ohio traffic idiots, why dont you higher your speed limit on the highways to 75 like every other state.

I agree with SteveB, Ohio is creating its own problems. Maybe they should focus their efforts on crime and less on someone traveling in their state to the airport.

Within 1 hour of driving and witnessing 20 cops on the highway, I began to wonder who sets law enforcement in this state and how they set their priorities.

Isn't Ohio the state where people rioted because of Police attitudes?

Hmmmm, after the cop who issued my ticket presented himself in such a kind matter, I wonder why???

– by Ohio Sucks

Groovy…(6:58pm EST Fri May 30 2003)….until the bleedin' things crash. Of course imaging a toy airplane (they're not testing the real military drones but airplanes on the scale of models) with “Ohio Highway Patrol” written on the side buzzing up and down the road is kind of funny.

I noted it was kind of ironic in the article that the test drone had to be grounded because of rain for one flight, which is one of the worst times for traffic congestion. And they require someone to be standing nearby to pilot it with old style R/C controls.

This simply has waste-o-money written all over it. What about the cameras that have been silently springing up over the traffic lights at major intersections, aren't they good enough? Lastly, even if they do spot a criminal with facial recogniton software, how likely are they to catch him?

“This is Office Riley, I'm flying my plane over I-340 and we just saw a wanted purse snatcher heading west, no wait a minute, he turned, no wait, oh, durn, ran into a tree.” – by Ziwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwi

Could be good(7:27pm EST Fri May 30 2003)Don't forget, Ohio wants to use it to monitor traffic and guide emergency vehicles. And I also know these things can circle for hours without any outside interference (at least some of the military ones can), so the cost to operate could be quite reasonable. Or perhaps they only send one up when an emergency vehicle is heading out. It might really help. – by I'll give it a go

Thieves(8:40pm EST Fri May 30 2003)The Secretary of the Air Force is James G. Roche.

“Prior to this appointment, Secretary Roche held several executive positions with Northrop Grumman Corp., including Corporate Vice President and President, Electronic Sensors and Systems Sector.”

Any questions why the predator is the darling of the battlefield and why the contract for the next generation UAV was awarded to Grumman without competition?

Cheney/Halliburton/Iraqi rebuild contracts revisited– by Perdo

HeY TheY`Re Here All ReadY(9:01pm EST Fri May 30 2003)There`s been a Uav in my Neighborhood for over a year now..i live on the seacoast so i expect if they lose control they can crash into the ocean.Pretty easy to spot these things small, cigar shaped and a damn strange engine noise..Unless they`re ALIENs! – by Twirling SpaceBubble

Freedom(11:20pm EST Fri May 30 2003)These people worried about their freedom being threatened because of these things need to get a grip, that is unless they also believe police helicopters are trampling their rights as well, then they'd at least be consistant. Now, Ohio may be stupid for using these to monitor trafic, as there are cheaper ways to do it, but I think sending one of these things off to follow a carjacker's highspeed joy ride instead of a helicopter would be a good use that would save the taxpayers' money in the long run PROVIDED helicopter use was truely curtailed. Of course, asking a force to give up their coolest toy in exchange for a couple remote controlled planes is going to be dificult. Also, for some areas it may possibly cost the tax payers money as these things could be cheap enough so that smaller towns could actually have an air presence, but the quality of protection in those cities would be improved. – by JS

Solution(11:34pm EST Fri May 30 2003)One Less Car has provided the solution to the underlying problem, which is traffic congestion: the solution is less cars. No drones would be needed then. Think about it.

The colors on that website are bad enough to make me think it's 1997 again. – by Perdo

No Problem Here(11:14am EST Sat May 31 2003)These drones won't be a problem at all. How long do you think it will take before shooting down drones will become popular?– by Jklm

Re: Happy without a car:(3:03pm EST Sat May 31 2003)“You are not free to harm my environment”

Then, you are not free to harm mine. Please stop breathing as you're belching out green house gases and killing our children. – by JS

Paranoid provoker!(8:47pm EST Sat May 31 2003)I think Sander slants his stories to provoke the paranoid. Seriously, civil rights are on the retreat these days, but this is just a big laugh. Drones are for the military, anything remote control isn't getting anywhere near a skyscraper or civilians. – by BEN

won't work, this isn't Iraq(9:29pm EST Sat May 31 2003)Sorry but this just won't work, well it could but it'll be very expensive and there's easier ways to do it.

They used these in Iraq in the middle of deserts, not in busy cities, with buildings and telephone poles to worry about.

Why not just mount wireless cameras on top of telephone polls? Even a few hundred cameras would be cheaper than the millions one of these aircraft would cost, not to mention the maintenance and operating costs.

I can't believe they're even considering this, all I hear is how broke states are and how they have to cut back on education to save money, but they'll pour millions into a plane to fly around and watch traffic??– by stupid ohioans

The true American way is not to waste and use freely but to conserve and preserve, to think it through with smart innovations (or maybe something as simple as limiting car production). – by Happy without a car

Of course you are(2:49am EST Sun Jun 01 2003)Look, it's realy simply, Happy without a car, when you ride a bike you burn fuel stored in your body, creating CO2 and water vapor, the same exact stuff that comes out of the tail pipes of those SUVs, which will trap heat in the atmosphere and cause the global temperatures to skyrocket in the next five years (Don't use glacial records and quantitative evidence to tell me it won't happen or isn't a big deal!). Even worse, as you are performing an energy conversion you are HASTENING THE HEAT DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE! How can you sleep at night, Mr. Entropy? I hope you're happy when all life in the universe dies because of people like you! – by JS

UNLESS offcoase, you have those UAV fly in very designated known patrol areas along the highways etc.

But what worries me more, is that this starts out officialy as traffic monitoring but can easily grow into evil eyes in the sky watching us everywhere, do we authorities with that much power/control, even in the name of supposedly our safety and against terrorism ??? – by MinorityReport

Stupid Jackass(6:38am EST Sun Jun 01 2003)“The true American way is not to waste and use freely but to conserve and preserve, to think it through with smart innovations (or maybe something as simple as limiting car production).”

Yes, the true American way is to tell other people how they should live their lives because, obviously, you are the best suited to make those decisions for them.

Me, I think you should get rid of your bicycle and walk everywhere. Bicycles travel too fast, confuse motorists, and lead to many pedestrian injuries every year.

In short, why do people think that it is their right to tell everyone else how to live their lives? Personally, I think SUVs for the most part are stupid. They consume too much gas, aren't as stable as a passenger car, and take up too much room.

But I will never try to tell the rest of the consumer public that I know what is best for them and that they shouldn't buy such vehicles. Damned fascists. – by Rocketpig

More money spent(1:27pm EST Sun Jun 01 2003)This is great…Spend more money in a state that already, like many other states, is in financial crisis. I live in Columbus and many good things, such as our historical society museum and school funding, is being cut drastically. Just goes to show what their priorities are. Also, just wait until one of those things crash in rush hour traffic…They could use another UAV to tell us about it! – by Pissed in Columbus

re: Happy without a Car(9:29pm EST Sun Jun 01 2003)Groovy for you, I've thought of getting a bike myself a few times, but then again showing up for work all wet from the rain isn't a good idea, nor is pedaling through the snow much fun. Not to mention your bicycle has paint and rubber and metals that require manufacturing and recycling, yada, yada.

If I lived in an area with perpetual sunny weather and never needed to get somewhere fast or carry very much then a bike as my only wheels would be do-able. However I don't live in a sybartic paradise following a life of casual predilection.

I think the biodiesel guy mentioned above has a lot more viable idea–I can imagine the motorheads in about 2025 or so. “What's that stuff? it smells like fried chicken!” “That's my *special* racing formula.” – by Ziwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwi

The Fight's On(10:05pm EST Sun Jun 01 2003)I think this is swell.

What it offers is a way to shoot back at the state without the ethical problems of killing humans.

Load up, kids.– by Billy Beck

who's telling who?(10:39pm EST Sun Jun 01 2003)By living wasteful ways you are harming us all. That's telling me I don't have the right to as many resources. We should thank environmentalists, they are thinking of us all and not just themselves!

Greed and glutony are not the American way! Or they shouldn't be. – by Greed Sucks!

Ah, no(11:38pm EST Sun Jun 01 2003)Most “environmentalists” are just socialists who use the environment as an argument for attacking corporations and globalisation. The people in charge of the environmental movement use hysterical language to gain power and money, not to actually protect anything (you want to attack greed environmentalists should be your prime target). How many times have you heard that 300 species go extinct every year? It's a popular line, but there's no data that even comes close to backing that claim up. Environmentalists are why hydroelectric plants are shut down, new nuclear facilities aren't being constructed, natural gas pipelines cannot be laid, thus denying resources to everyone. If they had their way the Kyoto argeement would have been adopted, potentially serious harming the world economy for a measly 0.3 degree Celcius over the next fifty years. You hear how global warming is harmful to the environment even though it's causing the deserts to become greener and increasing crop yields, and glacial records have shown that the Earth has gone through far worse in recent geological history and life went on just fine. Environmentalists want everything to stop based on incomplete data. How many people think logging in the US is a terrible thing even though we have just as much forest now as we did a hundred years ago? You'd think we were causing the extinction of all trees in the northern hemisphere if you listened to them. The environmental movement is based on DENYING resources, no matter how responsibly harvested and renewable they are. – by JS

Drone a missle to small planes(9:18am EST Mon Jun 02 2003)Private pilots and private aircraft continue to have airspace taken away and rights to fly limited. Take a ride in a small plane and experience “real Flying”. Then, imagine the real risks of being drilled by an unmanned drone. It's hard enough to meet the FAA requirements and maintain proficiency without having to worry about sharing the airspace with “blind” nothing to lose drone.

I hate the idea! – by piper cub

JS, you're wrong.(9:34am EST Mon Jun 02 2003)Do some research. We have landfill problems and dwindling fossil fuel reserves which makes guys like Dick Cheney kiss the ass of every rich arab country in hopes of their oil reserves, such as Saudia Arabia.

It's pure technological reason. We're at war with our suppliers and the cost of the fuel will only go up as it dwindles. Americans spend billions of tax dollars and trillions of insurance dollars to treat obesity related illnesses and the suburbanization of america ensures that the vast majority of americans drive distances they can easily walk. The simple fact point out that we'd be better off with less drivers and more exercise. We also need to stop using gasoline and companies don't have a better alternative on the market.

There's no socialism here, it's simple facts. I'm not even a liberal, I'm the piggiest of capitalists. If we ran the country like a company, we would have taken steps long ago to reduce motorists. It just doesn't make sense. – by Just an Engineer

Enviro-peoples(12:52pm EST Mon Jun 02 2003)You have a point, but a poor one, at best. Like Ziwiwi said, bikes are only ideal for those with time to piddle away on thier way to work on the nice days of the week. People like lawyers and lobbyists… Anyhow, for those of us driving 5 miles or more to work every day that need to occasionally carry large amounts of people or cargo, SUV's and trucks are the way to go.

Either you don't have a job or you work in la-la land.

Engineer, true “capitalists” are some of the most liberal people I know. They seek to have every one of their competitors regulated ot of business. It is how it works. Conservatives are true businessmen, getting things done right and making money while doing it.

Back to the drones, living in Ohio, it bothers me to see any Gov't money wasted when my college tuition has nearly doubled in the last 2 years and most of the schools are over 50 years old. Computers are in every classroom – for the teachers to use. The roads are kept paved, but not well – needing repaved every 5 years or so because of the poor jobs the state accepts. In cities, Toledo especially, the roads are nearly the worst in the nation.

My state has cut corners in every way I can think of. Our last election was a farce. We constituants had the choice to vote for either a super-liberal democrat or a crappy incumbent. Taft has done almost nothing for our state while in office. Tobbacco money funds our state's new schols more than taxes do. The state patrol is now changing to all white graphically camaflauged cars for “increased visability”…yeah, like when its foggy out. It is a nice state in many ways, but things need to change. Putting these mini spy-planes in the air is not going to help anyone but those doing the spying.

Get real lives people! – by SteveB

JS Fact Problems(3:07pm EST Mon Jun 02 2003)“just as much forest now as we did a hundred years ago”

Huh??!! That's just plain wrong, mate.

Thank a tree for our oxygen. – by Thank a Tree

Actually, dumbass, it is not far from the truth, mate.(5:57pm EST Mon Jun 02 2003)Where have you been? It is in the lumber industry's best interest to reforest as much land as possible. – by Dendropheliac-hater.

Actually, dumbass, it is not far from the truth, mate.(5:58pm EST Mon Jun 02 2003)Where have you been? It is in the lumber industry's best interest to reforest as much land as possible. – by Dendrapheliac-hater.

Never before, not now(3:37am EST Tue Jun 03 2003)The government doesn't exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to respecting the privacy of it's citizens. – by General Dzur

Actually, NOT, Dendrapheliac-hater(8:54am EST Tue Jun 03 2003)The lumber industy's interest is in the hear and now. Quick growing trees that can be ground up to make paper. $$$. Just like the oil companies.

Ever hear of old growth forests? They don't come back for hundres of years. Look at the Amazon basin, Madagascar, etc. Remove old trees and the soil washes into the sea polluting it for good.– by Thank a Tree

Enviromentalism(1:02pm EST Wed Jun 04 2003)Enviromentalism, in and of itself, is good for everyone.

The problem is, the enviromentalist movement has been hijacked by every politico with an crap cause.

Everyone can agree that breathing clean air, drinking clean water and not killing ourselves off is a good idea.

The problem is, the cause is so appealing to everyone, that it has gathered political riders, quit similar to the riders attached to good bills in congress.

Saving the enviroment is a good reason to allow abortions. Saving the enviroment is a good reason to stop abortions. Saving the enviroment is a good reason to go to war. Saving the enviroment is a good reason to stop the war. etc. ad infinium.

If we can dislodge all the commie pinko raw vegan lefties from the enviromental cause, some of the monopolistic totalitarian facist war pig hard righties might just come around. – by Perdo